2010/3/19, Daniel Stenberg wrote:

> CVS has served as well for many years, but time has come to finally get
> rid
> of it and enter the age of good tools. I'm using proper tools more and
> more
> at work and in other projects so the quirks of CVS has made me growingly
> uncomfortable over time.
>
> The only sane way forward as I see things is to go git. With git we get
> much
> better handling of patches (git am), we get much better handling of
> original
> author (git am and git commit --author etc) and it allows for a lot more
> fancy stuff that might be handy at times (like offline work and branching
> and...).

I believe there is an important factor about having the source
repository in CVS or GIT. It is related with occasional contributors,
those that use the tool or library find a bug and submit a patch. With
CVS is is extremely easy for the occasional contributor to provide a
patch. With GIT it is nearly impossible that occasional contributors
will ever contribute anything back.

Look for example at the libssh2 project, probably any other GIT
repository based project will do, and count the number of patches
provided on the mailing list since the conversion to GIT.

I strongly believe that GIT makes occasional contributors disappear.
Time will tell if this also happens with libcurl.

-- 
-=[Yang]=-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette:  http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html